Talk:House sparrow/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

---

endangered species

Does this species really warrant being in the category Endangered Species? You'd be hard pressed to find many species that aren't endangered somewhere in the world. Shouldn't the category endangered species be for ones listed as endangered of extinction as a species, rather than a county/state/country? Sabine's Sunbird 01:29, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Agreed; it isn't globally endangered. I've removed the Category:Endangered. - MPF 23:02, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

This is just me, but I don't think it should even be listed as Lower Risk, my reason being that the article says that there are over 400 million of these birds in the U.S. That's nearly two birds for every single person in the country. - Draconiator 11:39PM, 1 Jan 2006 (EST)

Numbers have plummeted in eastern Australia too it seems. There is a theory going around that this cause by benzine (a carcinogen) which is high in our unleaded petrol exhausts and the birds have developed cancers. Mind you numbers of other birds espeically smaller ones have plummeted too whereas larger birds like Sulphur-crested Cockatoos seem to be thriving. 58.107.76.139 13:22, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

The unleaded petrol theory seems unlikely as one would expect drops in its population everywhere that has introduced unleaded petrol, yet the areas of decline don't seem to follow this pattern. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.146.46.247 (talk) 16:32, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

On a recent visit to the UK It seemed to me that house sparrow numbers have recovered substantially. Three years earlier they were almost totally absent from the area I was staying (London SE20), but this year they seem plentiful. They also seem to be more slender than they were. This enables them to feed from bird feeders which were originally designed to exclude sparrows. Here in Australia they seem much larger than their UK counterparts despite food shortages caused by prolonged drought.Bebofpenge (talk) 02:36, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

This isn't a reason for information on their current or previous rarity in W Europe to slowly disappear. Can somebody bring this info back? Innotata 18:42, 29 October 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Innotata (talk • contribs)

(I now am.) innotata (Talk | Contribs) 17:36, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Photo

Can anybody confirm if the following is a young/female House Sparrow? I'm willing to license it under cc-by-sa if Wikipedia wants it. http://www.steinsky.me.uk/Image:bird_02.jpg Joe D (t) 02:21, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

It's an immature European Robin, beginning to moult into adult plumage, so it's lost much of the underpart spotting, and a trace of red is just apparent at the top of the breast. The spotted upperparts and insectivore's bill rule out juvenile House Sparrow, which has a much thicker bill, and usually shows a pale supercilium. A nice photo, and a typical Robin exposed perch.

The article currently only has adult Robins, so this would be a useful addition

jimfbleak 08:07, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

Just to think about: The first photo used in this article would be the subspecies Passer domesticus indicus. At least according to the german or swedish article.

[[Media:In the House Sparrow article the photo labeled "House Sparrow" in Singapore is incorrect. It's actually a Eurasian Tree Sparrow (Passer montanus). The defining mark of Tree Sparrows is the black dot on the cheek. (It's probably a juvenile ETSP as well) I just created an account and am not sure I'm doing this correctly so please redirect my minor edit if this is not the correct place.Media:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_Sparrow--ColleenCrank (talk) 14:27, 27 October 2009 (UTC)ColleenCrank

Thanks Colleen, I should have spotted that myself, image removed now Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:02, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

House Sparrows in the USA

I query the inclusion of this section. Are we to have House Sparrows in France, House Sparrows in Azerbaijan, House Sparrows in Slovakia. It seems more than a little USA-centric to have section for a country where the sparrow is an introduced species jimfbleak 17:11, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Would turning it into a section on North America in general fix the problem? Joe D (t) 17:22, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I could live with that, better than as is at present. jimfbleak 20:02, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I couuld provide a sh*tload of material on the sparrow in Australia. Is this of interest.58.107.76.139 13:13, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, please do. Drayke 08:20, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

North American House Sparrows

Under climatic pressures etc, the House Sparrow in North America is developing intersting adaptive forms .... and anyway, they are so well established by now that they area antaive species, albeit one of recent arrival. Interesting topic to keep an eye on. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.94.2.37 (talk) 13:34, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Incubation

Hi, About the "shortest incubation period record". House sparrows are comparable to other passerines in this respect, and theirs is not the shortest incubation period. According to a 2004 publication, equally short incubation periods (10 days) have been recorded for Carduelis flammea (common redpoll), Plectrophenax nivalis (snow bunting) and Calcarius lapponicus (lapland longspur), as well as a shorter period for Quelea quelea (red-billed quelea) at 9.6 days. The article reports an 8-day-record for the sparrow-larks of genus Eremopterix, from subtropical Africa. Source: Lloyd P. 2004. Eight- to ten-day incubation and nestling periods among Eremopterix sparrow-larks. Ibis 146: 347–350.

C. Morgan (10 May 2006) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 163.10.23.1 (talk) 16:44, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

See also?

Great sparrow campaign --rmo13 01:20, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

This refers to tree sparrows. Don't add it, please. Innotata 16:49, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Content removed from article

Sparrows in literature

The Roman poet Catullus addresses one of his odes to his lover Lesbia's pet sparrow (‘Passer, deliciae meae puellae...’), and writes an elegy on its death (‘Lugete, o Veneres Cupidinesque...’). The sparrow's playful erotic intimacy with its mistress ('To whose seeking she often gives her first finger/And provokes sharp pecks') makes the poet envious. At the climax of its elegy he reproaches it for dying, and distressing her ('Now, by your deeds, my girl's/Little eyes are slightly swollen and red from weeping'). The diminutiveness of the sparrow, and the hugeness and eternity of the afterlife, form a bathos that is typical of the mock elegy form: ‘qui nunc it per iter tenebricosum/illuc unde negant redire quemquam’ ('He now goes on a journey through that gloomy place,/From where they say no one returns'). Note how the sparrow's hopping is represented metrically. The bird is also alluded to in the line "He who lives by the stick, dies by the stick" in James Wilson's "The Stick Finch".

In Phyllyp Sparowe (pub. c. 1505), by the English poet John Skelton, Jane Scrope's laments for her dead sparrow are mixed with antiphonal Latin liturgy from the Office of the Dead. It belongs to the same tradition as Catullus' poem, or Ovid's lament for a parrot in the Amores, but the erotic element is more direct: 'And on me it wolde lepe/Whan I was aslepe,/And his fethers shake,/Wherewith he wolde make/Me often for to wake/And for to take him in/Upon my naked skyn'.

This is all very interesting, but belongs in a more general article about sparrows. Katr67 05:31, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Sparrows as food

I'm not sure which species it is that is consumed, but I'm assuming it's House Sparrow since they are fairly commonplace. This occurs in China and Japan, but I don't want to put anything in the articles without knowing for sure which species it is. Robin Chen 04:49, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

English Sparrow Slang

I'm from Southern Illinois, originally. Down in that neck of the woods, the English House Sparrow is primarily called a "spatsie" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.244.212.6 (talk) 18:17, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Life Span

What about sparrows who fall out of nests and are nurtured by humans? What is the probability of their survival?

How long do sparrows live?

68.50.15.250 (talk) 10:55, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I had one, it's unbelievable but staying in the balcony, as I gave food to the birds, it's parents found it as it was noisy, came and helped it constantly. At first it looked hopeless, but in a few days it was able to eat on it's own, was afraid and hard to catch, eventually it was gone after making more and more efforts of flying. It survived, later started coming in the balcony looking for food. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.118.182.12 (talk) 19:40, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

sections removed

I've just been removing some sections of the text that don't really belong here. These edits may be disapproved of, so I'll explain my rationale here:

• A few days ago I deleted the statement that Passeridae is related to "the Weaver Finch Family". There was no verification, and as far as I know and other Wikipedia pages tell, this is not believed to be true. In any case this belongs elsewhere.
• "In German-American communities, it is usually referred to as the Spatzie or Spotsie." There is not enough space on Wikipedia bird pages for every slang or highly regional term that exists. I could find no appropriate places in the text for this so I moved it here.

There are some more sections which I intend to delete or rewrite before I begin making some substantial additions to this page. If I remove them I'll put them here. Innotata 16:46, 1 November 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Innotata (talk • contribs)

The large North American population is descended from birds deliberately imported from Britain in the late 19th century. They were introduced independently in a number of American cities in the years between 1850 and 1875 to control pests. The mistake was realized after they were well established and by 1883 they were already considered pests and their introduction a disaster.<ref"House Sparrow History" by E.A. Zimmerman posted at Sialisref>

The statements made here, and to a greater extent those at the page in question, are not supported by any of other sources used for improving this page, and are misplaced, so I removed this here. I am also not sure this is a reliable source. See American Acclimatization Society and the refs contained therin. innotata (Talk | Contribs) 17:25, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Here's a link to a Cornell Lab of Ornithology article, published in their member publication BirdScope in 2004, regarding this exact thing; their article corroborates much of this information. MeegsC | Talk 19:18, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

See the sources I added in distribution. This also does not agree with Summers-Smith. innotata (Talk | Contribs) 21:20, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

No offense intended, but why is an older British book considered more reliable with regards American introductions than the online version of the highly-regarded Birds of North America (from which the information was taken for the article)? Your comment above (about the Sialis page) was "I'm not sure this is a reliable source." BNA is certainly very reliable! MeegsC | Talk 22:57, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

I was also referring to some other sources, two of which I added, and one of which I forgot to cite (I just corrected my mistake). But no, I can't find any sources that agree with Cornell. To take one instance, the date and location of introduction: Cornell and the bluebird people say 1853, Brooklyn, a few people to get rid of pests. The popular book Tinkering with Eden, an 1870s New York Times article, and some other sources say 1852, Central Park, by the park's commissioners, for decoration, agreeing with Summers-Smith. As for the reliability of Summers-Smith, I was going to drop a note about this at your talk page, but I'll put it here instead. First, let me establish that Summers-Smith is the authority. Every book (with serious citations) on the matter cites him intensely. All the genetic studies of the genus Passer I've gathered cite him for biology and the morphological classification. Importantly, the only important source mentioned for the genus Passer in Clement et al. is Summers-Smith. For this reason I'll try to replace cits (not only here, but also at other sparrow articles) to books like Clement et al. with those to Summers-Smith. This may mean over-reliance on Summers-Smith, a problem I'm preparing to deal with. Firstly I'll try to borrow Anderson 2006 through an interlibrary loan. This really would be the most reasonable way to go about it, and a good way to find which relatively new papers merit citation. I'll also try to get at the sources for Summers-Smith. So far I've only been able to do this for two papers: one was already cited (Vaurie 1949), the other was published by my state's Ornithologist's Union. Granted, I will not be able to dig up a huge amount of papers of importance, since most sources for Summers-Smith are obscure. innotata (Talk | Contribs) 01:41, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Yet another date for introduction: 1850, Brooklyn, online, and in the AOU checklist. I think that the currently given dates are right, though. innotata (Talk | Contribs) 17:39, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Egg Shell is a Medicine

I just came across with an ancient prescription (from Sri Lanka) that uses small amount of house sparrow's egg shell (Not the eggs, but just the shell of it) with many other medicines to produce a special, very famous, but rare type of a herbal oil (in Sinhala it is called Brahma Sarasvati Thailaya = something that amazingly increase the brain & memory power)..

Saraswati is known as goddess of wisdom and learning. She is considered as the personification of all knowledge arts, science, creafts and all skills.

L.W.C. Nirosh 02:49, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

For clarification

• "Common bacterial pathogens of the House Sparrow include Salmonella, Escherichia coli, anthrax, ...": The first two of these are common pathogens in humans, so I think some more explanation of the pathology in sparrows in needed to avoid confusion by comparison. In humans E. coli can be a commensal, opportunistic pathogen, or an invasive pathogen. Anthrax is a very rare and potentially dangerous infection in humans. Apparently Anthrax is not dangerous to vultures; however, I doubt that anthrax is common in sparrows in the Western world, so I think that this detail should be expanded to explain more about where these anthrax bacteria are found. It might also be useful specify the species of Salmonella bacteria. Snowman (talk) 09:38, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

nothing about this. Unsigned edit by innotata (Talk • Contribs) 22:18, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

The most important thing to do is to provide a much more detailed account of anthrax in sparrows. Snowman (talk) 23:21, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

No details to be found. —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 00:00, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

To me it sounds like an extraordinary claim to say that Anthrax is a common pathogen in sparrows. Where is the evidence? What harm does it do to sparrows. Snowman (talk) 00:12, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

• I think it would be worth adding a brief description of the transitional appearances between juvenile and adults. There are some photographs of males to illustrate this. Snowman (talk) 18:09, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Wait! I haven't even started working on the behaviour section yet. —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 22:18, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

• southern birds are smaller than their northern counterparts

This needs clarification because it is ambiguous. The House Sparrow has been widely introduced into the southern hemisphere; does this mean that introduced house sparrows in the southern hemisphere are smaller than northern-hemisphere house sparrows? Or does this size variation occur within its native range? If this size variation is within its native range in the northern hemisphere, this must be stated; if it is specific to introduced house sparrows in the southern hemisphere this needs to be stated too. -- B.D.Mills  (T, C) 23:03, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

I'll clarify this, by using latitude instead. —innotata 01:10, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing this out. I haven't really worked on the description section yet; I'd like to get the behaviour section somewhere first. —innotata 01:14, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

This was added by another user after a North American source, referring to the evolutionary/environmental change in the House Sparrow: I would have probably used "tropical", but latitude is best. —innotata 19:10, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

This makes sense. The Australian Magpie also exhibits this tendency: There is a tendency for birds to become larger with increasing latitude, the southern subspecies being larger than those further north the exception being the Tasmanian form which is small. (Note: the quoted text has a southern-hemisphere context.) I haven't researched this, but it makes sense for animals of the same species in warmer climates to have a tendency for smaller bodies; presumably the smaller body gives a greater surface area to volume ratio which helps dissipate heat. -- B.D.Mills  (T, C) 23:35, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Distribution map

What specialists think about this map? On this (french) website, serious, we can find a very different map. I don't have any bibliography on this and if someone can bring something new to understand where the problem is, it would be appreciated! Totodu74 (talk) 16:04, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Oh, an other weird thing : clutches of six eggs have been recorded, we have better ! :D Totodu74 (talk) 16:13, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

The map we have looks fine, comparing it to the maps in the sources I used, but the Oiseaux.net one is crazily inaccurate, besides going by countries. I've fixed the egg thing, but workers like Summers-Smith say they doubt House Sparrows can actually lay very many eggs. —innotata 00:54, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

The current map is based on the Handbuch der Vögel Mitteleuropas, surely an accurate source. For some examples of inaccuracies, the Oiseaux.net map shows the House Sparrow occurring in Indonesia, where it does not occur, and omits South Africa and Pakistan. —innotata 00:58, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

It's OK for the map, thanks! For clutches, do you mean that 6 could be the higher number of chicks (i.e. adults cannot ley more than 6 eggs), and that eggs could be more numerous? Totodu74 (talk) 11:38, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

I mean large numbers of eggs probably are the result of females dumping in other females' nests. —innotata 12:33, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Okay, thanks you so much! By the way, for the Oiseaux.net map, it would be fix quite soon. Regards, Totodu74 (talk) 19:02, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Etymology / other names

I have put all these together, there is no reason to select just one or two to put in the introduction, either all deserve to be there, or none, without favouritism. As they are minor trivia, none would be better. Also etymology and alternative names are not aspects of scientific taxonomy so don't belong in that section. I'd suggest the whole etymology section (being low importance) should go lower on the page, in its current position it looks odd interrupting the taxonomy and subspecies. - British Birder (talk) 16:29, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

The name English Sparrow probably deserves to be put in the lead, as does Indian Sparrow, as it is the only alternative name given in the Handbook of the Birds of the World, and notable as it is used for a number of species often considered separate. There is a difference between local or dialect names, and more widespread names also used in bird books and so on, and common practice in bird articles is to place the latter in the lead, and the former in the text. I think the etymology should be part of the taxonomy section, as is done with most bird featured articles (Great Auk, for instance). —innotata 17:46, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Just checked in HBW, its actual wording (p.793) is: "Other common names: Indian/Ceylon House Sparrow (indicus)", and the index includes 'Ceylon House Sparrow' and 'Indian House Sparrow', but not 'Indian Sparrow'. Also no mention of 'English Sparrow' there; this is very much an obsolete / archaic term, dropped by the AOU in 1957 (AOU changes, see also e.g. Wayne Campbell et al. [2001] The Birds of British Columbia: Passerines p. 695 ["The House Sparrow, formerly known as the English Sparrow"], and web pages like squidoo.com/housesparrow, http://www.library.illinois.edu/archives/uasfa/4307021.pdf (on page 11), http://www.socalbluebirds.org/docs/Minutes-SCBC%204_10_10.pdf (page 3)); as such I can't see its inclusion in the introduction being justifiable.

As an aside, on 'spatzie', this is presumably from German Spatz (see the German wiki page); in one of his papers (British Birds 87:593-602), Summers-Smith in citing a German paper with Spatz in the title, translates it as 'spuggy'. British Birder (talk) 14:51, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

I suppose you are mostly right in your last comments. However, in my personal experience "English Sparrow" and "spatzie" are in very common use. I haven't been able to find any discussion of these names in books, since of course names are usually taken for granted, but I'll keep looking. Indian Sparrow is pretty common, especially in the former Soviet Union, where indicus-group birds seem like a different species (I'll cite some Central Asian bird guides for the name). In consideration my opinion is that it is justified to not include, or include, alternative names in the lead. —innotata 15:20, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

According to this book (American Regional Dialects: A Word Geography, by Craig M. Carver), "spatzie" is a regional word from the German spatz meaning "sparrow". And if you put "English Sparrow" into Google search, and select for books, you'll find dozens and dozens and dozens of examples using it. MeegsC | Talk 20:48, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for finding the "spatzie" ref. As for English Sparrow, yes, I saw that, but I'd like to find something that could establish that English Sparrow is a common name today. —innotata 20:57, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Not sure it's very common anymore, though it certainly was for a while. It's certainly not something I've heard much through the southern/eastern/midwestern US in the past three or four decades; when I did hear it, it was typically when I was a kid listening to the "old-timers". And that's been more years ago than I care to admit! :) MeegsC | Talk 21:02, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

I recall "spadger" as another colloquial name too. It was recently discussed on a birding list I'm on.Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:25, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Spadger is in here. I've heard "English Sparrow" a lot, but I'll just cite some Google Books sources as you suggested, at least for now. —innotata 21:36, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm from a German-American town in the Midwest and we call them spatzies out here so much that no one knows their real name-- so yes, the term is still in everyday use, at least in this community. Bob the Wikipedian ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:45, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, and my experience is similar. But I can't find reliable sources to state that the names are rather commonly used, and it is unclear which if any alternative names belong in the lead. —innotata 00:06, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

In Australia I have only ever heard them called house sparrows, and had not seen any other names until the discussion on this birding archive last year, so I think better in naming section only really. Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:16, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Personal experience doesn't really count for anything on Wikipedia (except things to find citations for etc.), but I've heard alternative names a lot, rather than not hearing them. —innotata 02:12, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm slightly inclined to have "English Sparrow" and few other of the more common ones in the lead, but don't feel strongly so. I don't see the need for a naming section; it seems that at least for this species names fit into a taxonomy section. —innotata 00:21, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

I thought Lockwood looked like quite a good source, but I saw it recently, and found that it is alphabetical by each name, so any dialect names not starting with "sp-" might not be included. —innotata 02:12, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

I suppose it should be fine considering that the article says "includes", and most names probably start with "sp-". —innotata 17:31, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

File:House Sparrow mar08.jpg to appear as POTD soon

Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:House Sparrow mar08.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on August 20, 2010. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2010-08-20. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page so Wikipedia doesn't look bad. :) Thanks! howcheng {chat} 17:22, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Picture of the day

The House Sparrow (Passer domesticus, male shown here) is the most widely distributed wild bird. It originated in the Middle East and has spread throughout much of the world, mostly due to deliberate introductions but also through natural dispersal and shipborne travel. It is quite successful, due to its adaptability and ability to easily co-exist with humans.Photo: Fir0002

Looks like a nice blurb. —innotata 17:29, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Nest size

Just spotted in the article: Nest typically have external dimensions of 200 × 300 cm

Really? Did the writer of that mean 200 x 300 mm (20 x 30 cm)? 200 x 300cm (2m x 3m) would seem large for almost any bird!

Mittfh (talk) 07:27, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

You're right, this has been fixed. An easier way to think of the size of a House Sparrow's nest is the size of a standard association football ball, which probably ought to added. —innotata 14:25, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

A standard football is at the lower end of the stated nest range - 210-200mm so I'm not sure the comparison is that useful. Also does 200x300 imply unequal axes or did the writer mean 200-300mm? --Chuunen Baka (talk • contribs) 16:42, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't know how nests are measured, actually. Summers-Smith gives the figure in The Sparrows, and the football mention, I believe, in The House Sparrow.

Re your last edits: Personally, I prefer using fractions for inches—I don't think in terms of decimals for inches, and I think most Old English users are similar—, and not always using the convert template, as Casliber's bird FAs do. —innotata 20:33, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

As an old imperialist, I can sympathise but I prefer {{convert}} for consistency. Note that Wikipedia:MOSNUM#Fractions says not to use unicode fractions like '½'. If you want fractions you should use {{frac}} eg {{frac|5|1|2}} → 5+1⁄2. --Chuunen Baka (talk • contribs) 09:58, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Casliber's articles also use this, I pointed out. The convert template also needs a lot of text to abbreviate and round. For the issue of fractions, the editing toolbar gives these, so I'd assume they are preferred. The fraction template looks rather strange to me (may be browser or somewhat), with the numbers in the fraction the same size as usual numbers. —innotata 18:45, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Sparrows eat mice?

It says in the "Feeding" section that House Sparrows eat lizards, frogs and mice - is someone confusing them with the Sparrow Hawk maybe? I can see them eating newly metamorphosed frogs, newly hatched lizards and possibly new born mice but the sentence as it stands sounds rather ridiculous. They certainly couldn't tackle the adults of any of these animals. Also the video file of a male calling doesn't seem to play although the others work fine. Richerman (talk) 23:32, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, sparrows eat mice—house mice, in India, if I remember correctly (I can check). The video of the male calling works for me. —innotata 00:07, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Did you check? I can't find anything which claims the House Sparrow (also known as the English Sparrow) eats mice or lizards, Expect for this unique wikipedia article, furthermore mice are primarily nocturnal, the House Sparrow is not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Miaaz (talk • contribs) 22:39, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm sure the source I used (Anderson) says House Sparrows eat mice (not uncommonly, I believe it said), I just don't recall which species and where. —innotata 22:17, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

GAN?

Actually this article is looking pretty "Good" - innotata, were there some other things to be added..? Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:54, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, lots, in my opinion, though probably not that much before GAN (rather than FAC). I think the main things are the description (not that much is said about plumage patterns etc.), and some bits of behaviour (reproduction basically stops at eggs). —innotata 16:38, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

GAN? --Ettrig (talk) 16:07, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

I still think description should be improved—it's just not that great—, and I'll have to make the small fixes (like proper citations for the HBV) needed under the good article criteria. Almost there, and I should have time soon. —innotata 20:05, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

This description is 610 words. I happened by the featured article African Crake. The description paragraph there has 278 words. --Ettrig (talk) 09:45, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

It still is not a good description of the appearance of the House Sparrow, most of it is on less important topics, and as I said there are some small fixes needed. —innotata 17:02, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

This bird is also present in Asia, particulary Philippines

Hi, I was just wondering why in the map there I don't see Philippines being shaded in at least dark or light green color? I was born in that country and I recall 10 years ago seeing a lot of them living and nesting around many places in the country. That's the most common bird in our country right after the Philippine Oriole. A lot of local people there often mistaken it for a "maya" nowadays. They're found in mainly Luzon, upper part of the country. Can someone please upload a newer picture showing a more accurate distribution of the bird around the world? Thanks. Bleubeatle (talk) 23:19, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

The birds in the Phillipines and other parts of eastern Asia are the similar Eurasian Tree Sparrows—the page on them should contain any further information you want. —innotata 19:26, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Ohhhh...I see! Thank you for clearing things up for me xD Bleubeatle (talk) 22:01, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

House Sparrow is collaboration for July 2012

Nominated on 11 May 2011;

1. Iusethis (talk) 08:36, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
2. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 19:14, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
3. Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:30, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
4. DocTree (talk) 19:52, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Comments:

• I think it is time to make the most widely distributed wild bird in the world an FA. Iusethis (talk) 08:36, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

• Are some wandering sea birds that fly all over the oceans more widely distributed? Snowman (talk) 17:00, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

• Which ones? Apart from vagrants, seabirds tend to be segregated latitudinally, or to cold upwellings. Maias (talk) 03:37, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

• Mainly because this looks really close to GA status, and it'd be good to knock over a few of these, and input seems to be variable at present. Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:30, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

• Comments

• Content looks really comprehensive, I looked at another parasite book, nothing worth adding from that. I was surprised that this wasn't already at least GA
• Lead needs expanding, doesn't fully summarise article
• Other than that, unless someone has relevant content, it looks to me as if its just copyediting, and checking refs and other formatting stuff for consistency so they get past User:Nikkimaria. Countries should not be linked now, incidentally

• I think it needs a little more detail on plumage—there's only one sentence on females. As for, FAC, I'd like it to have some detail on evolutionary history and see if I can improve the behaviour section further, but I suppose I could do this after. —innotata 13:32, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

• The longer the article, the less likely potential reviewers are to read it, other than those with a particular interest. As long as it's got enough content, it doesn't have to be the final word. You've covered parasites which is a favourite "what about...?, and if anything is raised at GAN (if you go there first) or FAC, you can sort it then. There is bound to be something we haven't thought of, but we can't anticipate everything. Anyway, you're the lead editor, so it's unlikely to be nominated without your say-so. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 17:30, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

• I'll try and add a bit and review the article, and nominate at GAN it next week. Might hold off on FAC nonetheless though. —innotata 16:02, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

• Strings of more than three refs together aren't popular at FAC, need to be rolled up.

Jimfbleak - talk to me? 08:03, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

• What do you mean by "rolled up"? —innotata 13:32, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

• Put all the refs in a single ref, so instead of <ref>Smith (1786) p. 1</ref><ref> Jones (1787) p. 21 </ref><ref>Bloggs (1986) p. 100<ref></ref>Davis (2012) p. 123 </ref>, you put <ref>Smith (1786) p. 1; Jones (1787) p. 21; Bloggs (1986) p. 100; Davis (2012) p. 123 </ref> Jimfbleak - talk to me? 17:15, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

• The current format is consistent and useful, it'd be a lot of work to change it to a different such system, and I have no idea why it's necessary. —innotata 16:02, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

• Well, leave as is for the time being, and see if anyone complains. We can deal with it then if necessary. I've not checked, but the other reason that we sometimes get strings of refs is because there are multiple refs for the same fact. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:28, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:House Sparrow/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Sainsf (talk · contribs) 15:49, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi! I shall review this article. Looks well-written, rather interesting! Here are my preliminary comments:

Suggestion : Don't you think the article name 'House Sparrow' should be 'House sparrow' as per WP:FNAME and WP:MAMMAL? Could you rename it (move it)? Also change the words 'House Sparrow' to 'house sparrow' in the rest of the article.

No, there's not consensus for universal use of sentence case, and right now bird articles are continuing to be uniform in title case. 160.94.27.160 (talk) 16:28, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

 Done. Well, if they are uniform, then it is good. --Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 01:48, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Speciesbox  Done

• The speciesbox seems long. Due to the synonyms. No need to delete them, use the text I have used in the example on the right. (I've used taxobox here.)

House sparrow/Archive 1
Scientific classification
Synonyms
Species synonymy Fringilla domestica Linnaeus, 1758 Passer domesticus (Linnaeus, 1758) Brisson, 1760 Pyrgita domestica (Linnaeus, 1758) G. Cuvier, 1817 Passer indicus Jardine and Selby, 1835 Passer arboreus Bonaparte, 1850 (preoccupied) Passer confucius Bonaparte, 1853 Passer rufidorsalis C. L. Brehm, 1855 Passer engimaticus Zarudny, 1903 Passer ahasvar Kleinschmidt, 1904

• You can mark the colors in the range map with this template:

<div style="text-align:left; "><big>{{Legend2|#00FF00| Natural range|border=1px solid #aaa}}<br> {{Legend2|#009000| Introduced range|border=1px solid #aaa}}</big></div>

Which gives the output:

   Natural range
   Introduced range

Note:The above are just suggestions, not necessary things.

Not too unreasonable, though obviously there is only a species syonymy here. 160.94.27.160 (talk) 16:28, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

So what is your decision, do you apply this template? As well as range map's? --Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 02:23, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

The range map legend has already been added (and corrected from your version), I don't think the synonymy is needed and it'll look bad to show two "synonyms" labels. —innotata 14:06, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

 Done. Sorry, I forgot to see the article. Fine as it is.--Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 12:23, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Lead  Done

• Link 'Passeridae'.
  • Passeridae = sparrow in the common sense used in the article. It makes more sense to me to link at the common name, which is mentioned first. 160.94.27.160 (talk) 16:46, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

 Done. --Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 01:53, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

• Also mention the genus and link it in the first line. I see you have already linked it afterwards in lead, just do not keep the link.
  • I think that's too long of a first sentence, they should be short. 160.94.27.160 (talk) 16:46, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

 Done. At least it is in the lead.--Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 01:53, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

• and can perform complex and unusual tasks to obtain food Can you explain briefly, say in a line, what these acts are? Just give an example.
  • Replacing this in the lead. —innotata 02:02, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

 Done.--Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 01:53, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

• In the last paragraph, mention the status it is in (Least Concern) as per the IUCN.
  • Done. —innotata 19:48, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

 Done.--Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 01:53, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Note:I suggest you put the 'Systematics' section before 'Description', I think it would look proper.

• Readers may want to read the description of the animal prior to reading more in-depth information about its etymology, taxonomy and subspecies information. I prefer the section order the way it currently is. Northamerica1000^(talk) 11:20, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Agree,though I just think these two should at top in some order. —innotata 17:52, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

 Done. Yes, that's a point!--Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 01:53, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Description  Done

• 'Tail' is not required to be linked.

 Done.--Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 02:00, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

This section is well in the rest parts.

Systematics  Done

• No need to capitalize 'C' in Chaffinch.

See above. 160.94.27.160 (talk) 16:28, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Northamerica1000 had fixed it, let it be as it is. Where to see above, you mean? --Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 09:57, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Chaffinch is a species name, and these are capitalised for birds at least at present. —innotata 17:53, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

 Done. If they are capitalized currently, then let it be.--Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 01:59, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

• Most Passer species are dull-coloured birds Make it 'colored' and preferably pale-colored.

No, coloured is British English, which the article uses, —innotata 20:24, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

 Done.--Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 09:57, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

• In 'Subspecies' link the names of the scientists.
  • See below, and I'm not sure the two remaining are notable—their describing a taxon is not enough. —innotata 20:21, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

 Done. As they are redlinks for now, they may be left.--Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 01:59, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

• indicus-group and domesticus-group Why is a '-' required? It is not used elsewhere.
  • Here these are adjectives (or whatever you call it) rather than nouns, so hyphens should be used. —innotata 19:50, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

 Done.--Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 09:57, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

• You don't link other countries, then why Iran? Better not link it, it is not needed.
  • Not sure and don't care myself about this; I think this started with nearly all countries linked. —innotata 19:51, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

 Done.--Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 09:57, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

• Under 'domesticus group', mention who described it and when against P. d. domesticus. For all other such information in the rest of the subspecies, keep them in brackets.

Brackets symbolise the genus being changed, and not following this convention is highly confusing. 160.94.27.160 (talk) 16:28, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

I think it better if you mentioned Linnaeus described P. d. domesticus and when, though it is in the line. As: P. d. domesticus Linnaeus, (when?). You get it? --Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 01:59, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

This is explained by it being a nominate subspecies—its description is the species description, which is already mentioned. It could say "Linnaeus, 1758", but I think putting its nominate status upfront is good too and this certainly needs to be stated and made clear. —innotata 12:41, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

 Done. Sorry, I didn't know about nominate subspecies. This needn't be written.--Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 02:50, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

• There are two images in Subspecies. In the captions write P. d. indicus and P. d. balearoibericus, not just subspecies.
  • Done, don't think it matters much though. —innotata 19:52, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

 Done.--Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 01:59, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Distribution and habitat  Done

• Where introduced, it can spread quickly, sometimes at a rate of over 230 kilometres (140 mi) per year. Can we have a better word than 'spread' here?
  • Proliferate isn't good since this is specifically moving into more areas. What exactly is the problem? 160.94.27.160 (talk) 16:33, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

'Spread' doesn't seem to fit here, why not write 'Where introduced, it can extend its range quickly, sometimes at a rate of over 230 kilometres (140 mi) per year.' ? --Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 09:55, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Done. —innotata 18:06, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

 Done. --Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 02:01, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

• Reword In many parts of the world it has become a pest, and a threat to native birds.
  • Altered a little, I suppose "pest" is vague but a threat to native birds is not, but we could instead say it is considered a threat. —innotata 19:54, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

 Done. That is it, I wanted the 'pest' to be removed.--Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 09:55, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

• A few introductions have died out or been of limited success, such as those to Greenland and Cape Verde. Instead of 'have died out', write 'have failed to thrive', or such.
  • Some have died out (there are no House Sparrows in Greenland); others have been of limited success, which I take to be another way of saying failing to thrive. 160.94.27.160 (talk) 16:33, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

 Done. --Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 09:55, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Behavior  Done

• In Feeding, first write the part about their diet (which you have presently in the last paragraph), because the reader shall like to know about its diet first, not the ways the bird obtains it.
  • It starts with the main items of House Sparrow diets, and goes in depth (for example on preferred seeds) on those before discussing (secondary) animal items. 160.94.27.160 (talk) 16:43, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

 Done. All right, let it be. --Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 09:52, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

• In Breeding, see the line House Sparrows can breed in the breeding season immediately following their hatching. Does this bird breed round the year? Or does it have any particular breeding season? According to it, as soon as its egg hatches, the sparrow again mates. Is my inference correct? Else clarify.
  • I don't see how this is unclear: A House Sparrow born in one breeding season may breed in the following one. 160.94.27.160 (talk) 16:43, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes but when is the breeding season? Just mention if it can breed any time in the year or is there any particular time.--Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 09:52, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

This is discussed elsewhere in the section. House Sparrows are found in both the northern and southern hemispheres, and the tropics, so reasonably covering the timing of breeding would be very lengthy. —innotata 18:01, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

If the breeding time varies geographically, just mention there, it must be in 'Breeding'. I believe this issue will be resolved then.--Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 02:11, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Added a little more. —innotata 23:27, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

 Done. Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 10:05, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

• How many eggs are laid at a time? Though mentioned in 'Eggs and young', just give a rough idea of it here.
  • This could be in the lead if it's not, but it will really be out of place in discussions of courtship and timing etc. 160.94.27.160 (talk) 16:43, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

 Done. Good as it is. --Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 09:52, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

• Before Other males usually do not copulate with the female, mention that it is the dominant male that mates.
  • It's not the dominant male, it's the male mated to the female in question. 160.94.27.160 (talk) 16:43, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Actually I wish to have it mentioned in the line how it is decided which male shall mate. --Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 09:52, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

The one that's paired and is building a nest with the female is what I meant. —innotata 17:57, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

 Done. So it is the female who chooses her mate. Well and good.--Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 02:11, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

• Pairs copulate frequently and the male mounts the female repeatedly. Do not both the parts of the sentence mean the same thing?
  • During bouts of copulation, there are multiple mountings, will clarify. 160.94.27.160 (talk) 16:43, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
    • Done I think. —innotata 01:28, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

 Done.--Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 09:52, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

• Can you mention how long the copulation usually is? How many ejaculatory thrusts are there?
  • Not sure this is in my sources, esp. The Sparrows, which I can get to sooner. 160.94.27.160 (talk) 16:43, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
    • Not in The Sparrows, not sure it's in the sources I've seen. —innotata 01:28, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Good if you can add, it can wait.--Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 09:52, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

To be clearer, not sure this is easy to find or even recorded at all. —innotata 23:47, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

• Many birds do not find a nest and a mate, and instead may serve as helpers for mated pairs Though there is a link to helpers, could you very briefly say how they help in the mating process?
  • I can't find any details, I'll probably need to look at Pinowski, which could take a while. —innotata 01:55, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

OK, leave this issue till resolved.--Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 09:52, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Added "around the nest", since I wouldn't be confident adding further detail without finding a source. —innotata 23:53, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

 Done Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 10:05, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

• The formation of a pair and the bond between the two birds is tied to the holding of a nest site, though paired House Sparrows can recognise each other away from the nest. By what means can they recognize each other away from the nest? Also, write 'recognise' ans 'recognize'.
  • Probably by plumage and body proportions, will try to check. The article uses BE. 160.94.27.160 (talk) 16:43, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
    • Nothing in The Sparrows. Determining that animals recognise each other does not require determining how, this might not be known. —innotata 01:30, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

If not known, mention this is not known.--Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 09:52, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

That's not specifically stated in the sources (which mention this in passing) I can look at. —innotata 17:58, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

 Done. All right, this is not so important. In fact, I was curious myself! --Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 02:11, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

• In 'Eggs and young', write 9 in words in the line Eggs hatch ... as few as 9. Numbers from one to ten should be written in words, as per MoS. Look for such other instances.
  • This isn't good style, as the MoS says: "Comparable quantities should be all spelled out or all figures: we may write either 5 cats and 32 dogs or five cats and thirty-two dogs" —innotata 01:33, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Then let this be uniform in the whole article-either numbers or words.--Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 09:52, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

It's not good style for this to be done throughout an article, with only vaguely similar quantities. —innotata 17:57, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

 Done. As you think right.--Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 02:11, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

• Link 'display' to Display (zoology) for better understanding.--Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 02:11, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Linked courtship display. —innotata 12:44, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

 Done.--Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 02:52, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

(Now that this is a GA) I've added the unanswered questions to the to do, on the talk page. —innotata 03:00, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Survival  Done

• The House Sparrow is also a common victim of roadkill; on European roads, it is the bird most frequently found dead. Could you reword this?
  • What needs to be changed? —innotata 02:06, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

The latter part seems a bit confusing, I suggest 'the bird is most frequently killed on European roads' or such.--Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 09:44, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't see what's confusing; your particular phrasing is too vague, suggesting House Sparrows are killed more often on European roads than elsewhere or something. —innotata 21:02, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

 Done. I am sorry. This is a vague issue to raise. Still, it was all mistake. --Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 12:25, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

• Who is Ted R. Anderson?
  • We should just say "an ornithologist" I suppose. 160.94.27.160 (talk) 16:36, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Say, then. It is necessary for the reader to know.--Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 09:44, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Done already. —innotata 17:59, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

 Done, --Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 02:12, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Note: I suggest you make 'Status' in 'Relationship with humans' a separate section.

It is hard to separate as written, but this might be good. 160.94.27.160 (talk) 16:36, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

It shall be convenient. This is not hard work, just change the place of the text, no need of change in the writing, and it is done.--Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 09:44, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

No, it isn't the best organisation of the existing text to do so now. —innotata 17:59, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

 Done, --Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 02:12, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

And really, this is an aspect of House Sparrows' relationship with humans. —innotata 15:44, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Relationship with humans  Done

• In most of the world the House Sparrow is not protected by law. Write 'by the law'.
  • This is fine too, is this a BE/AE issue? 160.94.27.160 (talk) 16:37, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't know what you mean by BE/AE issue.--Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 02:23, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

British-American English (and this was added by Jimfbleak I think). —innotata 12:45, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

So are you changing it? --Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 02:55, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

It's good to keep this consistent in one version of English, but I'm not sure there's a difference (or one of style) here, or anything wrong about either phrasing. —innotata 14:13, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

 Done.--Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 12:26, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

I will be having more comments soon, after I read further. Fix these issues till then. I like this article, I will be patient until it becomes GA. Contact me if you want to on my talkpage or here.--Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 15:49, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

I have added all my comments. Please see to them quickly. Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 10:18, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Article updates

• Per the information above, the following changes have been made to the article, along with some changes that were not made and rationale why:

 – De-wikified generic link for "tail"

 – Added link to Passeridae article

 – Added to lead: The animal's conservation status is listed as of "near threatened" on the IUCN Red List.

 – chaffinch changed to lower-case

 – Rewrote to: " Where introduced, they can proliferate quickly..."

 – Rewrote to: "In many parts of the world it has been characterized as a pest that may pose a threat to native birds."

 – Rewrote to: "A few introductions have failed to thrive..."

 – Did not wikify Edward I. Gavrilov and M. N. Korelov, since they're red links at this time

 – Did not de-wikify "Iran", because other country articles such as Morocco are linked in the article

—Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:10, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Reply to the other comments - under each one - whether you agree or disagree about it. You can delete what you don't think right, I am not so knowledgeable! :) --Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 09:19, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

I posted my problems those of these changes I reverted, above. —innotata 01:58, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

I just added one last comment from 'Breeding'. Else, wherever I have marked  Done, are the resolved issues. In fact, I am learning a lot about House Sparrows here!--Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 02:15, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Great improvements! Again sorry for a few vague issues I raised. I think this GA review will end soon, once the remaining issues in 'Behavior' are resolved. Else is quite fine! --Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 12:30, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

If these are all the issues, looks like everything's covered. —innotata 23:48, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Great work! I love this article. I am turning it into a GA. Cheers! --Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 10:06, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

why introduced?

This article mentions that the bird reach most of its present range via human introduction (often on purpose). Yet it also says that the bird is widely though of a pest. So why was it introduced in the first place. Needs clarification. --Kevlar (talk • contribs) 19:57, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Taxonomy

The expression "the sparrow family Passeridae" can easily be construed incorrectly, insofar as Passeridae is only one of at least two families of birds that are commonly called sparrows. There are Emberizidae, "New World sparrows," and Passeridae, "Old World sparrows." Neither is THE sparrow-family.

Also, it seems that there should be some mention of the fact that weaver finch is often said to be the correct name. This can easily be confirmed with an Internet search using both names together: "House sparrow" "weaver finch".

Your Buddy Fred Lewis (talk) 01:42, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Sparrow is pretty commonly used to mean just Passeridae. To most people worldwide, a sparrow is some member of the family. With American sparrows, not all are related (or in Emberizidae), and Emberizidae also includes the buntings and other birds. But I do agree the name doesn't unambiguously refer to Passeridae.

"Weaver Finch" isn't an old or commonly used name for the House Sparrow, and I think it's just an error. It's a common name for members of the Estrildidae, not the name of any one species, and in old classifications today's Passeridae was placed within Emberizidae. Most of the search results are people saying "the House Sparrow isn't actually a sparrow [meaning an American one], but a weaver finch" based on the old classifications; a few have jumped from this to saying "Weaver Finch" is the correct name. —innotata 03:19, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Taxobox images

I have been trying to find better taxobox images. The male image, while photographically great, depicts a bird with non typical plumage on its back (molting?), and the female bird image looks awkward as a thumbnail and has a distracting background. I searched all available images on commons (including images of pairs), and have selected two matching images which display the birds with typical plumage. Comments? --Tony Wills (talk) 10:55, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

I can see why you want to find better ones, but these won't do in my opinion. The female you added is probably a younger adult, and it doesn't show the typical head plumage and dark bill of an adult, and the photo is poor at higher resolution than the thumbnail. The male is in non-breeding plumage in a greyish cast photo so plumage features appear poorly and the thumbnail looks blurred. Not so important, and this can be fixed by flipping, but both of the images are also facing the wrong direction. I disagree that it's so important to have a plain white background, rather than a good photograph that shows the plumage well. (There are few with a white background, so that doesn't leave many choices. At least there are some unlike with most species.) The old images were there for a reason, since they are terrific photos that have depth as well as capturing plumage. I'm rather biased toward Diliff's female, because of how well it shows the upperbody plumage, tail, and legs, and the spectacular detail. The background is blurred and contrasts with the bird, so I don't see what the issue is. I do agree the old male isn't the best (I think it just moved its feathers around, it's in breeding plumage). I suggest we use Diliff's female and find a third, better male photo. I've been listing some good images at User:Innotata/Passer/House Sparrow images, feel free to add more there. —innotata 14:16, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

We must have more sparrow images than most other birds, pity there are so few great images. My criteria for taxo box images is perhaps different from others: This is a thumbnail image as part of an information box, I don't see it as the 'lead' image or most important image, it is just a representative image for the species that shows the characteristic features of the species in thumbnail. It doesn't have to look good at full resolution, it doesn't have to be photographically perfect, in fact it is usually closely cropped (beyond what is asthetically pleasing for a full scale image), and even a botanicalzoological illustration may be better than a photo to illustrate the subject. The 'pedia page needs to stand alone, if you want a high-res image displaying the plumage (or anything else), put it on the page at high-res, I often feel that articles need more than little thumbnails everywhere.

I usually don't like photographs that look artificial and divorce the subject from its surroundings, but for the taxobox image I go the other way and prefer to have an image with a clear background, and would even accept cutting the subject out of a scene and giving it a blank background.

I think Diliff's female looks odd at thumbnail, perhaps it is the angle, but I find something discordant about it. If there are to be two images in the taxo box, I think they need to match, similar stance, similar background, similar orientation. --Tony Wills (talk) 21:40, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Most of your criteria are sound, but prioritising a clear background severely limits selection. You may have found the only two decent photos with white backgrounds. As long as photos do everything a taxobox image needs to do, and the background contrasts, why does it matter? High-resolution images are important, and Wikipedia articles really aren't in isolation, but that isn't a big issue here.

My top priority is plumage, and these images aren't typical, or great at showing plumage. I'd really like a mature female—the article needs to illustrate one somewhere near the top, and I'd rather not have some explainer of why the taxobox female is different from mature adults. I'm not even 100% sure it is an adult and a female, I need to read up on this. I suggest bringing back Diliff's, so are there any other images you considered, or do you have any suggestions for alternatives? The male works, but I'll look for a better one. —innotata 23:15, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

I hear your concerns about showing full adult plumage, I'll see what else I can find, might have to go further afield. --Tony Wills (talk) 06:49, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Would you mind suggesting one soon, or can I restore Diliff's image, at least temporarily? After reading some books illustrating females by birds with very dark bills, I'm pretty uncomfortable with keeping the current image. —innotata 15:27, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

I looked far and wide and found a four on flickr and picasa that were good profiles, but none were freely licensed and not sufficiently good enough to pursue a change of license. If the female one here is just a juvenile, I wouldn't have a problem just labeling it "Juveile female", it's not as though the plumage misrepresents the typical female much. I don't think the info-box image has to be the best available high-res image, it just has to be a clear thumbnail of what a typical bird looks like. I really don't like Diliff's female at thumbnail size, I find it has a peculiar artificial look which I think comes down to the wire behind it being out of focus when it ought not to be - it looks like the background was smeared to look out of focus to highlight the bird (maybe it wasn't edited but I think that's what puts me off it). It may be a good representation of the plumage and could be used as such elsewhere in the article. Perhaps what we should do is just put a single image of the male in the infobox as most other bird articles seem to do.

Which do you think is the best typical male image? --Tony Wills (talk) 11:20, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

I really don't think Diliff's photo is edited that much, and it's a perfectly normal, commonplace photograph. It was taken at a castle, so the background probably was just too far away to be in focus. You seem to have an issue nobody else has. We have plenty of decent photographs, so we should be able to include one of each sex. My first choices for males would be File:House sparrowIII.jpg and File:Passer domesticus male (15).jpg. Though I don't like the low resolution and you might not like the backgrounds they look great in thumbnail and the birds contrast sufficiently. (And then Diliff's female.) When I'm saying it's a young bird, I'm talking about features like the bill and weak supercilium birders can recognise quickly. Also, if it is an immature rather than a young adult it's not necessarily a female (I still need to read up on this); juvenile and immature plumages are just entirely different things from adult plumages. The article needs to feature a mature female somewhere near the description, so I say we ought to have one in the taxobox. I guess just including a male in the taxobox would work in this regard, but that's an overreaction to your issues with Diliff's work. —innotata 15:21, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

I agree they are low resolution but do really like your second choice File:Passer domesticus male (15).jpg which is on a good angle, shows plumage clearly, and as you say looks great in thumbnail :-). I obviously prefer the two images that I proposed, which no one else has expressed a problem with, but if there are issues with the representativeness of the female image, I would be willing to accept the compromise of File:Passer domesticus male (15).jpg in the taxobox and the best available female image in the article body. --Tony Wills (talk) 06:27, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

On second thoughts, it's not the best angle showing the back, and there are a number of other good choices, but I'll go with it.

Some people will only see the images in the taxobox, so I'd prefer keeping a female there. Indeed it might be better to have a less representative one (and add a mature female in breeding plumage below), or to have a poor photo. So I'd rather keep the current photo (it needs to be flipped, and is it brightened too much?). But I still haven't seen enough to justify removing Diliff's photo, and entirely disagree on it. —innotata 15:55, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Measurements and Shape

The comments regarding Bergmann's Rule seem to be backwards.

99.109.198.154 (talk) 03:13, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.